Critics argue that the Eaton fire was a preventable tragedy caused by corporate negligence and a failure to prioritize public safety over cost-cutting measures. The fact that an idle, aging tower was left standing in a high-fire-risk area suggests a systemic breakdown in the utility's risk assessment processes. Opponents of the utility's current management style point out that if a piece of equipment is no longer serving an active purpose, it should be removed or de-energized to eliminate the risk it poses to the community.
Accountability advocates emphasize that the utility has had ample warning about the dangers of its aging infrastructure, yet it has consistently failed to act with the necessary urgency. By leaving dormant towers connected to the grid, the company essentially left a ticking time bomb in the middle of a vulnerable ecosystem. Critics believe that the utility's focus on shareholder returns and operational efficiency has come at the expense of necessary maintenance and safety, leading to a culture where risks are ignored until a disaster occurs.
There is also a growing demand for the state to impose much stricter oversight on how utilities manage their inactive assets. Opponents argue that the current regulatory environment is too lenient, allowing companies to avoid the costs of decommissioning equipment while passing the risks onto the public. For the families affected by the Eaton fire, the utility's explanations are insufficient. They are calling for a complete overhaul of safety standards, including mandatory inspections and the immediate removal of any infrastructure that does not meet modern fire-safety requirements.